In 2008, the Chilean government, headed at the time by Michele Bachelet, attempted to raise the bus fare paid by university students. The increase was not great, maybe ten or twenty cents, but the students saw it as an unacceptable infringement on their right to an economically accessible higher education. The students immediately called a strike, refused to attend class, and classes were suspended.
What followed was an amazing show of both political and organizational strength on the part of the student body. Students were organized by their majors or areas of study, and every other day they would meet to discuss the developments in the negotiations with the government and to vote on whether to continue the strike until the following meeting (which would be held two days later). So, the strike went on, two days at a time. It went on this way for almost two months. For two months, students of each area diligently attended these meetings, like revolutionary councils, and voiced their opinions.
The process soon took on a life of its own. The strike began peacefully, waiting patiently for the government to reverse its decision and return the bus fare to its original price. Then, voices began to emerge demanding the government not only return the fare to its prior level, but freeze the price at that level for the foreseeable future. The government agreed to cancel its planned price increase, but was vague as to whether it would be frozen at that level. Students started storming university buildings. They would break in and camp out inside, as conspirators on the outside would bring them food and drink during the day.
Slowly, the tone of the strike shifted from a specific grievance (the student bus fares) to larger more general issues dealing with education. In Chile, education is at the forefront of the clash between the neoliberal economic model established by Pinochet and continued by his democratic successors, and the desire by some (particularly the young and educated) for a greater social welfare state. More radical students took the strike as their chance to completely change the education system in the country. The demands soon poured in concerning more complicated issues like the general state of university funding, and even demands to address the inequity between public and private secondary schools. Police tried to take back the university buildings, and there were numerous nighttime confrontations.
The government agreed to freeze the bus fare price, but the strike continued. Some departments decided to end the strike, but the most radical departments were unfazed. I remember the students from the Literature department as being one of the most radical, while others like the Economics department did not lose a single day of classes. The radical demands were met with grumbles from some, exhausted by the weeks and weeks of striking. Ordinary people began to accuse the students of just being on vacation. Once the radicals realized their demands would not be met, and that they had made their point and their views had been heard, it didn’t take long for the strike to finally end and for students to return to class. They would have to make up part of the time they missed by cutting into their Christmas vacation.
The anatomy of a strike: (1) an action by someone in power causes mass discontent; (2) the masses mobilize to reverse or undo the action; (3) as negotiations drag on more and more grievances surface; (4) the increase in demands cause those in power to reverse the original action that caused the discontent; (5) those with the most grievances [radicals] take over the movement; (6) those in power refuse to negotiate with the radicals; (7) the movement is split between those who are happy with the original action being reversed and the radicals who want more changes; (8) either the radicals or the moderates win. This is also the anatomy of a revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment